As for the future of this blog, I know I cannot just
return to business as usual -- whatever absurd reasons have led to this
much hatred for me (and for what I write here) will continue, so there
is no reason to think the same things wouldn't happen again... and
probably soon. That includes anything that raises (or maintains) my
visibility, so I will not be doing speaking engagements--especially at
public events.

Sierra first went public in March 2007 about threats she had
received on her own and other sites that included: photos of her with a
noose around her neck; photos of her with a muzzle over her mouth
apparently smothering her; and violent and sexual messages that
included her home address. She cancelled public appearances and has
ceased blogging (at least for the time being).

Nor is this issue confined to the so-called blogosphere, as the recent controversy around AutoAdmit
shows. (Anonymous) posters on AutoAdmit, which bills itself as “the
most prestigious college discussion board in the world”, and an
allegedly related web-based contest rating the “Most Appealing Women at
Top Law Schools” featured photographs, personally identifiable
information, sexually explicit and derogatory comments on a number of
womyn. Some of these womyn spoke to Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post about the situation, alleging that the postings were not only personally but also professionally damaging.

As these incidents have garnered more attention, debates have
primarily focused on the question of censorship versus free speech,
with such attacks glossed over as an unfortunate side effect of
(important) anonymous internet participation but ultimately
unrepresentative of the majority of Internet readers/speakers. Where
the issue of gender is put in the forefront, discussions have tended
towards what Joan Walsh, writing at Salon.com, characterized as “…telling them to stop wearing such provocative outfits online, lest they get that they deserve.” Dahlia Lithwick, at Slate.com,
suggests that discussions about the issue have too often been framed in
terms of “are women tough enough?” or “are women playing victim.” Such
approaches have the unfortunate effect of seeming to focus on gender,
without ever truly examining the underlying equality implications of
such actions.

Lithwick claims, in her article Fear of Blogging: why women shouldn’t apologize for being afraid of threats on the Web
that “…the Internet has blurred the distinction between a new mom’s
whimsical blog about the new baby and Malkin or Ann Althouse blogging
about politics. The intent of these writers is totally different, but
on the Internet, that difference evaporates.” Although Lithwick is
arguing that not all womyn bloggers are public figures, in doing so she
seems to accept that at least some bloggers are public in such a way
that such attention(s) may not be entirely unexpected. In a similar
vein, the operators of AutoAdmit commented in the Nakashima article in
the Washington Post that “…some of the women who complain of being
ridiculed on AutoAdmit invite attention by, for example, posting their
photographs on other social networking sites, such as Facebook or
MySpace.” In fact, it seems that the mere presence of a womyn in online
spaces may be enough to attract unwanted attention -- a University of Maryland study of IRC chatrooms in
2006 found that female usernames received 25 times more threatening and
sexually explicit messages than did those with male or
ambiguously-gendered usernames – an average of 163 messages a day.

Existing remedies to these problems seem either non-existent or
ineffective. A panel discussion , convened at Harvard University to
discuss the issue of Internet Speech, focused extensively on the
AutoAdmit issue. Much of the discussion revolved around what, if any,
remedies might be available to the affected womyn and against whom they
could be exerted. Various panelists suggested that the students might
seek redress via: suits against the ISP and/or the website operators,
from the individual posters themselves, from the individual
universities under a claim that the posts constituted sexual harassment
and the Universities had obligations under Title IX to take action
against it, and through the medium of defamation or privacy torts.

The womyn affected have taken various forms of action already. Kathy
Sierra reported her harassment to the police as well as going public
about it online. Some of the womyn in the AutoAdmit conflict have hired
Reputation Defender to
try to address the issue. Joan Walsh admits that pervasive misogyny on
the Web has impacted her own voice, but still concludes that “[a]nd
yet, mostly, women on the Web just have to ignore it. If you show it
bothers you, you’ve given them pleasure.” A 2005 Pew Internet &
American Life Project report suggests that other womyn have
internalized this lesson and are simply avoiding participation – the
report, entitled How Women and Men Use the Internet,
shows that participation in chat and discussion groups dropped by 11%
between 2000 and 2005 due to womyn choosing not to participate.

I am concerned about these remedies, concerned that womyn’s options
seem to be to fight an isolated and individual battle, to just “deal
with it” or to walk away, silenced. I am concerned that the remedies
offered all seem to be focused on individual situations and harm. By
focusing on individuals and individual remedies, we may lose sight of
the larger issue.

Dahlia Lithwick’s article examined the differences between offline
and online communication and argued that there are quantitative
differences at work when it comes to these kinds of attacks and
threats. She concludes:

No woman should have to choose between writing – either
personally or professionally – and being told that her family will be
raped. Sadly, that appears to be the current choice. But the important
inquiry isn’t whether she should drop out or not. Nor is it whether she
should stop whining or keep screaming. Those questions are personal and
subjective, and the answers will be as different as the writers who
consider them. The better questions are: Are these threats serious? Why
do they feel so serious? How often do they result in something serious?
And what might we do about it? Gender differences are only the
beginning of the important discussions – not the end of them.”

With all respect to Ms. Lithwick, gender differences may only be the
beginning of the discussions, but they are a beginning that has neither
been fully explored nor fully weighted in these debates. Gendered,
sexualized threats are inherently serious, not only because of the
violence or danger of it, but because of their impact on equality.

As women gain visibility in the blogosphere, they are
targets of sexual harassment and threats. Men are harassed too, and
lack of civility is an abiding problem on the Web. But women, who make
up about half the online community, are singled out in more starkly
sexually threatening terms..

The problem with looking at this issue through individual lenses is
that while individual redress (of some limited kind and in some limited
cases) may be available, in doing so we leave in place the existing
norms that created the situation in the first place. When womyn are
being singled out more and being subjected to greater and more
sexualized violent harassment, we must continue to explore this issue.
Not, as so many writers have done of late, to ask “how should womyn
respond” but rather to question “where does this come from and what are
its overarching effects?” In examining this issue, we become aware that
the online environment has become a new, broader environment for these
things to emerge, be expressed, proliferate and to some degree become
accepted.

I must confess – I have no answers. Many issues come up in this
discussion – free speech, fear of censorship, the importance of
anonymity, and the problem of whether we can or should regulate the
Internet. As we seek to weigh all the issues and arrive at some
understanding – ideally some solution – it is imperative that we not
forget to add to the mix and weight appropriately our social
commitment(s) to equality and the recognition of the communal benefits
of equality. Any solution that is arrived at without taking this into
account will hinder the transformative potential of these new spaces
just as the current gendered, sexualized violence and harassment is now
doing.